WASHINGTON, D.C. (LifeSiteNews) — Funding abortion through state Medicaid programs not only makes taxpayers pay for the killing of preborn human beings, but it does so at the expense of patients with critical health needs, according to a new report.
This week, American Family Association Action (AFA) released a report comparing the abortion industry’s receipt of taxpayer “health” dollars with the state of patients whose healthcare comes from Home and Community Based Services (HCBS) programs.
The analysis begins by noting that the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) “gave $1.535 billion to Planned Parenthood through grants or cooperative agreements from Medicaid/CHIP and $3.28 million from Medicare over three years in the latest public data,” at a time when Medicaid costs continue to rise, forcing policymakers and regulators to make tradeoffs both within the program and between Medicaid and other budget items.
Among the affected services is the HCBS program, which “is designed to provide supplemental, but often highly needed, services to vulnerable groups,” such as the disabled or elderly, yet in 40 states many HCBS recipients are being placed on waiting lists.
“While providing healthcare services for medically complex patients will always be an ongoing challenge, one thing is clear: billion-dollar abortion providers should not be receiving Medicaid funding that could instead be used to help disabled children and vulnerable adults,” AFA declares.
READ: Supreme Court rules South Carolina can defund Planned Parenthood
The report goes on to provide detailed comparisons for the relevant states. In Florida, for example, Planned Parenthood most recently received $11.7 million in federal grants and reimbursements while 77,123 HCBS patients are on waiting lists.
Within weeks of returning to office, President Donald Trump began enforcing the Hyde Amendment (which forbids most federal funds from directly supporting elective abortions), reinstated the Mexico City Policy (which forbids non-governmental organizations from using taxpayer dollars for elective abortions abroad), and cut millions in pro-abortion subsidies by freezing U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) spending.
In March, the administration froze Title X “family planning” grants to nonprofits it said violated its executive orders on immigration and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, including Planned Parenthood affiliates in nine states.
Last year, Planned Parenthood’s most recent annual report revealed that its affiliates across the nation took in $699.3 million in government “health services” reimbursements and grants, accounting for 39 percent of its total revenue during that period.
Losing some of that money has taken a considerable toll, causing closures in several states, and while evidence indicates that so-called “telehealth” abortions have helped sustain the industry after Roe, it cannot fully cancel out the deterrent effect of making surgical abortions harder to obtain.
Other Republicans have proposed standalone measures to fully cut off Planned Parenthood’s government funding: the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act, which permanently bans federal funds from being used for abortion; and the Defund Planned Parenthood Act, which disqualifies Planned Parenthood and its affiliates specifically. But they would require 60 votes to make it through the Senate.
In May, House Republicans passed Trump’s so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” an omnibus containing much of his legislative agenda into a single piece of legislation. Among many wide-ranging details conservatives consider both good and bad, it contains language to bar Medicaid reimbursements to entities that commit elective abortions, including Planned Parenthood.
Whether that language survives, however, remains to be seen. This week, Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough struck multiple provisions she deemed beyond the scope of the type of federal budget matters that can be addressed with simple majority vote. The pro-life language was not yet affected, but it could conceivably be targeted in a later review.
